THE CASE OF TIMOTHY JOHN EVANS (Hansard, 18 May 1965)

§ LORD BYERS
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)
My Lords, my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary has given this suggestion most careful consideration, but he has no grounds for thinking that a further inquiry at this stage—more than fifteen years after the event—could discover any new material of substance beyond what is already known about this case. On the material at present available it is impossible, in his view, to reach a definite conclusion on whether Evans committed the offence of which he was convicted, and my right honourable and learned friend has concluded that no useful purpose would now be served by asking a committee of inquiry to determine this question.

§ LORD BYERS
My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for answering this Question, may I ask him whether he is aware that in the last Parliament the present Home Secretary and many Labour Members pleaded most strenuously with the Government to reopen this matter in order to clear Timothy Evans's name? Will he say why there has been a change of attitude, since at 360 that time it was agreed by the Labour Party that there was a great deal to investigate and a great deal of written material which could well be scrutinised again?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I have no knowledge that the Labour Party as such ever expressed a view, or indeed could have expressed a view, on this case.

§ LORD BYERS
I said "Members of the Labour Party."

§ LORD STONHAM
It is within my knowledge that my right honourable and learned friend spoke in a manner as is suggested by the noble Lord some three and a half years ago. If I am asked why he has now reached a different conclusion, I submit that there had been a lapse of some three and a half years and that Mr. Scott Henderson, Q.C., who examined Christie in the course of his private inquiry in 1953, and whom no doubt one would wish to question in any new inquiry, himself died in November of last year. I would add that my right honourable friend since then, and since taking office, has himself reviewed all the material available and has reached the conclusion that it would be impossible to reach any definite conclusion on whether or not Evans murdered his child. I understand that many authorities, including the late Lord Birkett, share that view.

LORD REA
My Lords, I think the noble Lord in his original Answer said that there was some doubt about it and that it would be very difficult to clear up. In that case, is a man who is convicted and about whom there is doubt as to his conviction not to be presumed innocent? It has happened in other, recent cases in regard to a dead defendant that his name cannot be cleared of a charge which has not been proved. In this case the charge has been "proved", but there is some doubt about it.

§ LORD STONHAM
If, in my previous Answer, I implied that Evans was certainly guilty, then of course I withdraw that. The facts, as I understand them, are that on the available evidence it is possible to take the view that Evans was probably innocent, and it is possible 361 to take the view that he was probably guilty. That is the position we are in. On the point posed by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, the only occasions when a free pardon can be given are when there is a certainty of the innocence of the accused.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, may I make a very earnest appeal to the Government to reconsider this decision? It is not only a matter of evidence; it is a matter of justice. In view of the great interest which is now being taken in the whole subject of capital punishment, and the fact that not only the Home Secretary—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS
Order!

§ LORD BROCKWAY
I want to keep within the Rules of the House, but I feel very deeply about this matter. May I ask the Minister whether it was not only the Home Secretary but also the present Foreign Secretary who urged a reconsideration of this question, and whether the Government cannot think again about it? It would be deplorable if any man has been hanged when there is a great deal of evidence to show that he was innocent.

§ LORD STONHAM
I appreciate that my noble friend has very deep feelings in this matter, and those very deep feelings are shared by many other people. My noble friend mentioned the question of justice. That is precisely our difficulty in this particular case. My right honourable friend is not certain, and does not believe that after a lapse of sixteen years a further inquiry can make anybody certain, of the guilt or innocence of Evans. That is why he feels that the further inquiry asked for in the Question would serve no useful purpose. I will certainly bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the views that have been expressed.

§ LORD BYERS
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is a very weak answer, indeed? What he is really saying is that in the last three and a half years the writing on the evidence has faded. Are the Government really satisfied with the Scott Henderson Report? They were not satisfied up to the time when they came into office, and none of us is satisfied with it. If we are not to appeal to a 362 Labour Government, where do we get this sort of justice done?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his implied commendation. The noble Lord mentioned the previous inquiry by the late Mr. Scott Henderson. One of our particular difficulties is that Mr. Scott Henderson is no longer here to be questioned.

§ LORD BYERS
The report is here.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, in other words, what the noble Lord is saying is that he expects to obtain a new opinion from the old evidence which has been gone over before. That may well be possible, but I submit to your Lordships that it would not and could not produce certainty of this man's innocence. That is the difficulty which confronts us.

§ LORD NEWTON
My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that in the view of, at any rate, some of us in this House, in all the circumstances his answers on this very difficult matter this afternoon have been very reasonable?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for his comment. But, if he will allow me to say so, I appreciate the very deep feelings of many noble Lords on this issue. It is a matter of regret to my right honourable and learned friend that he has felt obliged, after the most careful study and deep thought on this subject, to give the answer that I have just given.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, the intervention of the Opposition makes me put another further question. Is the Minister aware that there was very heavy criticism of the Scott Henderson inquiry from this side of the House; that it was a private inquiry; that there was no cross-examination; and that the evidence before it has never been made known to the public? In view of the very deep concern about the whole question of capital punishment, will the Minister ask the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to look at this matter again?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I have already given an assurance on that subject, and I am aware, of course, of the 363 criticisms which were made of Mr. Scott Henderson's report. I have also read Mr. Ludovic Kennedy's book and am, perhaps, as reasonably well-informed as one can be on this subject. I shall certainly bring these observations to my right honourable friend's notice, but I would again express the view that, despite all that has been said, I do not think that a further inquiry would bring certainty of the innocence of this man. It is merely one more example of the tragedy that in a case of this kind we cannot produce the man concerned.